* backport 790756c7e022 to 4.14 and 4.19?
@ 2023-10-30 21:25 Martin Kaiser
2023-10-30 23:15 ` Sasha Levin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Martin Kaiser @ 2023-10-30 21:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: stable; +Cc: Nick Desaulniers
Dear all,
after upgrading my toolchain to gcc 13.2 and GNU assembler (GNU
Binutils) 2.41.0.20230926, compiling a 4.14 kernel fails
arch/arm/mm/proc-arm926.S: Assembler messages:
arch/arm/mm/proc-arm926.S:477: Error: junk at end of line, first
unrecognized character is `#'
The problem is that gas 2.41.0.20230926 does no longer support
Solaris style section attributes like
.section ".start", #alloc, #execinstr
Commit 790756c7e022 ("ARM: 8933/1: replace Sun/Solaris style flag on
section directive") fixed up the section attributes that used the legacy
syntax. It seems that this commit landed in 5.5 and has already been
backported to 5.4.
Should we backport this commit to 4.19 and 4.14 as well? If so, should I
submit patches that apply against the 4.19 and 4.14 trees or do you want
to resolve the conflicts when you queue up the patch?
Thanks,
Martin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread* Re: backport 790756c7e022 to 4.14 and 4.19?
2023-10-30 21:25 backport 790756c7e022 to 4.14 and 4.19? Martin Kaiser
@ 2023-10-30 23:15 ` Sasha Levin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Sasha Levin @ 2023-10-30 23:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin Kaiser; +Cc: stable, Nick Desaulniers
On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 10:25:10PM +0100, Martin Kaiser wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>after upgrading my toolchain to gcc 13.2 and GNU assembler (GNU
>Binutils) 2.41.0.20230926, compiling a 4.14 kernel fails
>
>arch/arm/mm/proc-arm926.S: Assembler messages:
>arch/arm/mm/proc-arm926.S:477: Error: junk at end of line, first
>unrecognized character is `#'
>
>The problem is that gas 2.41.0.20230926 does no longer support
>Solaris style section attributes like
>.section ".start", #alloc, #execinstr
>
>Commit 790756c7e022 ("ARM: 8933/1: replace Sun/Solaris style flag on
>section directive") fixed up the section attributes that used the legacy
>syntax. It seems that this commit landed in 5.5 and has already been
>backported to 5.4.
>
>Should we backport this commit to 4.19 and 4.14 as well? If so, should I
>submit patches that apply against the 4.19 and 4.14 trees or do you want
>to resolve the conflicts when you queue up the patch?
I'll queue it up, thanks!
--
Thanks,
Sasha
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-10-30 23:15 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-10-30 21:25 backport 790756c7e022 to 4.14 and 4.19? Martin Kaiser
2023-10-30 23:15 ` Sasha Levin
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox